Canada

The United States has imposed a new set of sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), prompting several countries – including US allies – to condemn the move and reiterate their support for the world’s war crimes tribunal.

On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Washington would be banning transactions with the “rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate”, adding that President Donald Trump would “never allow” the Hague to prosecute Americans.

The ICC was created in 2002 to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.

The US Treasury Department announced the penalties with a six-month initial grace period and other exemptions that would allow some transactions for telecommunications, software, pension payments and transactions related to detainees.

Rubio said the sanctions would give the court and its member states an opportunity to address US concerns and would be adjusted if they did not meet those demands.

The Trump administration says the court has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries that are not ICC members, such as Israel. The United States and Israel have never joined the court.

In response to the sanctions, the ICC said that the move was an “assault on the rule of law and on the very foundations of the international legal order”. It called on its 125 member states to defend the institution.

“The Court cannot stand alone. Its fate now rests also in the hands of the states that created it,” the ICC said in a statement. “This is not just about defending a single institution, but about safeguarding the international order grounded upon the rule of law. History will judge this moment.”

The Trump administration sanctioned more than a dozen judges and prosecutors before issuing sanctions on the court itself Friday.

Allies ‘regret and disagree’ with US move

Soon after the US announcement, top United Nations officials condemned the move.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was “deeply alarmed” by the expected impact of the sanctions on the court as a whole, particularly its ability to carry out its mandate, a statement from his spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said.

“Today’s decision marks a serious blow to our collective pursuit of international criminal justice, of which the ICC is a key pillar,” the statement added.

UN Human Rights chief Volker Turk called for immediate measures to protect the ICC. “These sanctions – the latest in a series of retaliatory steps against the ICC and its personnel for the work they do every day to advance accountability for the very worst violations of human rights – are unacceptable,” he said.

ICC member states that are US allies also expressed dismay at the decision.

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen, whose country hosts the ICC, said the US’s decision was “deeply regrettable”.

“We will stand firm in defence of the court. At the same time, it’s important to note that the sanctions will not take effect immediately and that service providers can continue to work for the ICC. The six-month period before the sanctions take effect creates scope for dialogue,” he said.

In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan said they “regret and strongly disagree” with the sanctions.

“If put into effect, these sanctions will have a significant impact on the Court’s work, its dedicated staff and their families … We remain both united in our support for the ICC and committed to engaging in constructive and inclusive dialogue with non-States Parties,” they said.

Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot also said Brussels would discuss support for the ICC with European Union foreign affairs colleagues on Monday and at the upcoming European Council.

“We will press for concrete protection. The court’s independence cannot depend on whom it investigates. Europe must act. Belgium is calling for the activation of the EU Blocking Statute to protect the court,” Prevot said.

US aims to ‘ultimately destroy’ ICC

Similarly, organisations and rights groups sounded the alarm over the implications of the US decision.

Philippe Bolopion, executive director of US-based Human Rights Watch, said the Trump administration had made clear its aim to “destroy” the ICC and “shield US and Israeli officials from facing charges before the court”.

“The ICC was created to ensure that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law. Governments that value human rights and accountability should condemn this outrageous move and take swift action to protect the ICC, its staff, and all those who cooperate with it, starting with the European Union using its laws to mitigate the sanctions’ impact in the region,” he said.

The Executive Director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, James Goldston, said the sanctions were a “calculated attack on the rule of law and the principles of judicial independence and equality that underpin it.”

“This is the latest move in a campaign of coercion intended to destroy the system of international justice,” he said.

Amnesty International called on countries to “resist”. Trump’s “sanctions are designed to isolate and ultimately destroy the International Criminal Court”, Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty’s senior director for research, policy, advocacy and campaigns, said in a statement. “This existential attack must fail. States must take concrete action to resist the imposition of these measures.”

Amid widespread criticism, Israel commended the US move.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the sanctions and praised Trump and Rubio for taking this “critical decision”.

“The ICC is not a court. It is a political body that poses a mortal threat to law-abiding democracies worldwide and to the very idea of national sovereignty,” Netanyahu wrote on X.

In 2024 the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges for the war on Gaza.

ATLANTA — Not long ago, Georgia gubernatorial nominee Rick Jackson eagerly compared himself to his fellow billionaire in the Oval Office. He promised to be Donald Trump “with a Southern tone.” And sharing a summer rally stage, Jackson pointed at the president and declared, “I’m going to be this man’s favorite governor.”

On the debate stage this week with his Democratic opponent, however, Jackson discussed Trump only when Keisha Lance Bottoms brought him up. And he assured his audience that he’d “stand up to anybody.”

Jackson is not alone in his recalibration: Republican nominees for Senate, the U.S. House and governor’s offices across the country are sidestepping President Trump or openly distancing themselves as they debate before Election Day.

Those tactics, not unlike Republicans scrubbing Trump from their campaign websites, are the latest signs of how much Trump’s standing has fallen because of voters’ frustration with inflation, the Iran war and other matters. And the dynamics highlight the perilous options many Republicans face as they try to stitch together winning coalitions that go beyond Trump’s core supporters.

“Republicans right now are facing a voter turnout problem” in their own party, said GOP pollster Paul Shumaker, and must win “unaffiliated voters” who care most about the economy.

“You have to have something significant to change this narrative,” Shumaker said. But, he explained, that means “a significant victory in Iran” and seismic economic improvements — not something any Republican midterm candidate can force from behind a debate podium.

There’s a Trump tightrope on Iran, tariffs and rhetoric

Some Republicans are taking specific positions at odds with the president.

Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers said in his debate Thursday with Democrat Abdul El-Sayed that he’d urged the White House privately to reach a trade deal with Canada and end the president’s tariffs. Canada is Michigan’s largest trading partner, as it is for many Great Lakes and Midwestern states.

Days before, Rogers unveiled a new ad in which he said, “We know that Canada is not our enemy. We need to end the tariff war — now.”

That’s a noticeable departure from Rogers’ earlier, less specific statements praising Trump’s “America First” economic agenda while saying tariffs are not a “one-size-fits-all” solution.

Another Michigan Republican, Rep. Tom Barrett, already had bucked the president by voting for a war powers resolution intended to assert congressional authority over military actions in Iran. But debating Democrat Will Lawrence in their central Michigan district, Barrett added a criticism of Trump’s rhetoric Monday in Nebraska, where he floated the possibility of Iran attacking San Diego and Los Angeles.

The president mentioned those cities as part of his argument that higher gas prices because of his Iran war are a “small price to pay” to keep the country safe. But Democrats seized on the remarks, some insisting that Trump was calling for Iran to attack U.S. cities.

Barrett was asked whether Trump’s words were acceptable. Given the opportunity to echo the White House explanation that Trump was offhandedly mentioning a worst-case scenario he was trying to prevent, Barrett offered no defense.

“Nope,” he said flatly.

Many Republicans prefer a more generalized stiff arm

Reflecting the complex electoral balance, most Republicans have attempted to separate themselves without naming any firm difference with the president.

Running for a promotion to the Senate, Iowa U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson tried in her debate Wednesday against Democrat Josh Turek to reconcile her earlier promises to be a Trump ally in Congress’s upper chamber. She said it would be “really easy” to keep her word and still be bipartisan — a buzz word she’s already been featuring in her campaign.

“I’ll be President Donald Trump’s ally when it is important for Iowa, but I will push back on him — he knows this, because I talk to him regularly — on things that are wrong for our state,” she said. “That’s true no matter who’s in the White House. That’s true no matter who is governing and who has the gavel.”

That’s the same path Jackson took in Georgia, as he pivoted away from Trump by embracing outgoing Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican who has clashed with the president, starting with Trump’s false claims that he won Georgia in the 2020 presidential election.

“I will stand up to anybody, just like Brian Kemp has done,” Jackson said.

Another Republican House member, Mike Lawler of New York, made a point of name-checking a Democratic colleague, New Jersey’s Josh Gottheimer, and discussing bills they’d work on together. It was part of his argument that he’s able to challenge Trump and the party line.

“When I agree with the president I say it. When I disagree with the president, I say it,” he said in his closing remarks.

Hinson, meanwhile, referenced bills she’s worked on in the House that have been signed into law by both President Joe Biden and Trump.

But she also avoided criticizing Trump when asked about the president sending Affordable Care Act rebate checks to some Americans and promising a $5,000 bonus after the midterm elections if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate.

She said she “cares very deeply” about making sure Congress maintains the power of the purse and thinks it’s important to “live better within our means.”

Democrats pounce on either approach

Regardless of the Republican efforts, Democrats have continued peppering them with attacks and retorts about Trump. The most heated moments came when Democrat Cait Conley repeatedly said Lawler always voted with Trump.

“No matter how many times you say 100% of the time,” the congressman answered, “it’s provably false.”

When Rogers conceded in his back-and-forth with El-Sayed that the administration “probably” made errors in its mass deportation strategy, the Democrat answered swiftly.

“He said it was probably not right. I mean, it’s definitely not right,” El-Sayed said. “They killed two people.”

And while Georgia’s Jackson seemed uncomfortable talking about Trump, Bottoms was more than happy to mention him.

“I’m not running to be his favorite governor,” she said. “I’m running to work on behalf of people like you.” ___ Associated Press reporters Joey Cappelletti in Washington; Hannah Fingerhut in Des Moines, Iowa; and Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Parti Quebecois returns to power, promising a third referendum on Quebec’s independence from Canada.

The secessionist Parti Quebecois has won the most seats in Quebec’s election and will form the next government in the predominantly French-speaking Canadian province, according to media reports.

The result on Monday revives the question of whether the province should leave Canada, testing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s message of national unity.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the party’s leader, is set to become premier.

During the campaign, he promised a third referendum on leaving Canada during his first term, although he said he would wait until US President Donald Trump leaves office in January 2029.

It was not yet clear whether the party had reached the 64 seats needed for a majority in the 127-seat National Assembly.

If it falls short, it would lead a minority government and need support from opposition lawmakers to pass major legislation and survive confidence votes.

The Parti Quebecois, or PQ, last governed the province from 2012 to 2014.

Monday’s victory marks a sharp recovery for the PQ, which won just three seats in the 2022 provincial election.

Its return also ends eight years in power for the Coalition Avenir Quebec, or CAQ, a centre-right Quebec nationalist party that does not support independence.

Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, told The Associated Press news agency that the victory reflects Quebec’s multiparty system, where support is divided among several parties, rather than a surge in secessionist sentiment.

Support for independence remains at about 30 percent, low by historical standards, he said.

Still, Beland said a secessionist government in Quebec represents a new national-unity challenge for Carney, particularly with another independence-related vote approaching in Alberta.

“Seeing that a pro-independence party won in Quebec barely two weeks before an independence-related referendum takes place in Alberta might suggest to the Trump administration that national unity remains a major issue in Canada despite the popularity of Mark Carney,” Beland said.

Quebec held two previous referendums on independence, in 1980 and 1995, and voters rejected secession both times.

The second vote was decided by a narrow margin, but there has been no further referendum in the three decades since.

Debris found off Nantucket island after the air ambulance disappeared while flying from Bermuda to Boston.

The United States coastguard has suspended its search for six people on board a medical transport jet that crashed while flying from Bermuda to Boston.

“Suspending a search is not an easy decision,” Rear Admiral Matthew Lake, commander of the ⁠coastguard’s Northeast District, said in a statement on Sunday.

The search was called off after teams spent about 66 hours covering 4,445 miles (7,150km) by air and sea and confirmed that debris found off the shore of Massachusetts’s Nantucket Island came from the aircraft.

The Gulfstream G100 carried two pilots, two medical staff, a patient and a relative, Clarence Togeretz, director of flight operations at Canada-based Latitude Air Ambulance, told Canada’s public broadcaster CBC.

The four crew members were Canadian, and the two passengers were Bermudian, according to authorities.

In a statement on Sunday, Latitude Air Ambulance said, “Given the information shared by authorities and the conclusion of ⁠the search-and-rescue phase, we must now face the heartbreaking reality that the four members of our Latitude team, our patient and the patient’s family escort, who were ⁠aboard Heartbeat 104, are presumed to have died.”

Attention has turned to what happened in the jet’s final minutes, when flight-tracking data showed a steep descent and air traffic controllers struggled to re-establish contact.

Authorities have not determined what caused the aircraft to come down.

The aircraft had flown to Bermuda to collect the patient and was heading to Boston Logan International airport.

The US Federal Aviation Administration alerted the coastguard at about 2am on Saturday (06:00 GMT) after contact with the jet was lost.

Lake said at a Sunday news conference that the water around the debris was about 80 to 90 feet (24-27 metres) deep.

He offered condolences to the families of those on board and thanked the agencies involved in the operation.

Latitude Air Ambulance specialises in medical evacuation and repatriation flights, carrying patients home from other countries.

The company says its missions are normally staffed by two pilots and medical personnel.

The US coastguard says it has dispatched air and surface crews to search for the plane near Nantucket.

An air ambulance has gone missing while carrying six people on a flight from Bermuda to Boston.

The US Federal Aviation Administration told the coastguard early on Saturday that it had lost contact with the plane, a Gulfstream jet, ⁠a coastguard spokesperson told the Reuters news agency by email.

The ⁠coastguard said it dispatched air and surface crews to search for the plane near Nantucket, an island community south of mainland Massachusetts.

The National Transportation Safety Board said it was gathering information about the situation on Saturday morning but had no further update to share.

The Canadian-registered air ambulance jet had four crew members and two passengers on board when it departed Bermuda’s LF Wade International airport overnight for the flight to Massachusetts, according to a statement from the Bermuda airport’s operator, Skyport.

Canada’s Minister of Transport Steven MacKinnon said in a social media post that four Canadians were on the plane.

“We are closely monitoring the situation and are working with the relevant authorities as search and rescue ‌efforts continue,” MacKinnon wrote.

The aircraft, registered to Latitude Air Ambulance, departed Bermuda at 12:41am local time (03:41 GMT), according to data from flight tracking website FlightAware.

The plane was flying at 24,000 feet (7,300 metres) for much of the flight before descending 13,000ft (3,960 metres) in about two minutes shortly before flight controllers lost contact, data showed.

Last communication

Air traffic control audio posted by LiveATC.net offered a glimpse of the flight’s final communications before it went missing.

“Roger, you said you’re coming in blind. Is that what you said?” a controller can be heard asking the pilot.

The pilot’s transmission could not be heard in the recording. The controller later confirmed the pilot was declaring an emergency just before losing contact with the plane.

The Bermuda government is in contact with US ‌authorities and families of the passengers, Bermuda Premier David Burt wrote in a statement posted on Instagram.

“We are praying that all six people will ‌be ‌found safe,” he wrote.

Latitude Air Ambulance is based in Ontario, Canada, and provides medical evacuation services. The company ⁠did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Toronto, Canada: As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney races to make the country less dependent on the United States, attract billions in new investment and get major projects built faster, his economic overhaul is running into resistance from a group that says it wants many of the same things: organised labour.

The latest clash, over the right to strike, comes after months of mounting pressure on Ottawa from Washington, DC.

US President Donald Trump, since taking up a second term in office last year, has imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods and weakened trade agreements – perilous moves as Canada has historically sent close to 80 percent of its exports to its southern neighbour. He has repeatedly piled on with the tariff threats to make Canada the 51st US state.

Canada has responded with retaliatory tariffs, while a broader movement to “Buy Canadian” has taken hold. The hockey-inspired “elbows up” — meaning a readiness to defend against an opponent — has become a national rallying cry.

With trade talks stalled since August, Carney has moved with urgency to shore up the economy and invite new investments. Last month, he announced Bill C-39, known as the Building Canada Strong Act, promising to bring “speed, certainty and predictability” to investors.

Along with measures to speed up approvals for major projects, the bill would also give Ottawa clearer powers to intervene in legal strikes and lockouts in federally regulated workplaces — a provision that has put Carney on a collision course with unions.

Canada’s largest unions have come together against the changes. The largest, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), had its national executive go as far as voting to defy the bill’s proposed limits on the right to strike if it passes Parliament without amendments.

CUPE National President Mark Hancock credited Carney’s handling of Trump and said the union’s 800,000 members, who work everywhere from hospitals to schools to municipal services, want to be part of “Team Canada”.

“But at what cost?” he said in an interview with Al Jazeera.

A fight over the right to strike

The controversy centres on Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, which already gives the Labour Minister broad powers to step into disputes if needed to maintain “industrial peace”, end work stoppages and force the two sides into a binding arbitration.

Beginning in 2024, Ottawa used the provision eight times to intervene in disputes involving airlines, Canada’s two largest railways, three major ports and Canada Post and again during the Air Canada dispute in 2025 when flight attendants went on strike.

Unions have challenged the use of that law in court and had hoped the proposed C-39 would restrict, if not repeal, that clause while businesses wanted it strengthened.

The bill does neither. Instead, it introduces two conditions that the government would have to fulfil first before turning to Section 107.

Before stepping in, the government would have to appoint a special mediator, wait for a public report and consider whether a work stoppage is hurting the “national interest”.

Once a strike or lockout is underway, the minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to get operations running again and impose a binding process, such as arbitration.

The government says those steps put clearer guardrails around a power that already exists, and Carney has said the bill “absolutely reinforces the right to strike”, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Unions have rejected this defence, pointing out that the meaning of “national interest” would ultimately be decided by the minister. They also argue that the prospect of government intervention is bound to change what happens at the bargaining table.

“The political lesson that employers will draw from it is simple,” Larry Savage, a professor of labour studies at Brock University, told Al Jazeera. “Hold out long enough, emphasise the economic damage, and then Ottawa will remove the union’s leverage for you.”

Disruption, Savage said, is precisely what gives a strike its power. “Every effective strike is disruptive,” he said.

Unions say they have already seen employers expect Ottawa to intervene.

Teamsters Canada alleges the Canadian National Railway (CN) and the Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) railroad companies were counting on Ottawa to step in when they locked out thousands of workers in 2024. Section 107 was invoked within hours.

“Companies have gotten used to the idea that if there is a labour dispute, they can just wait for the government to intervene,” Christopher Monette, Teamsters Canada’s director of public affairs, told Al Jazeera.

CUPE said it saw a similar dynamic at Air Canada in August 2025. Hancock said bargaining stalled after more than 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants voted overwhelmingly to strike because the airline was “expecting the government of Canada to step in and end the strike” — an account Air Canada disputed.

Less than 12 hours after workers walked out, Ottawa invoked Section 107. Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau later told BNN Bloomberg the airline had expected the provision to be enforced and did not expect a strike.

“That was why they didn’t have a strategy on how to deal with the strike,” Hancock said.

Building Canada faster

The fight over the right to strike is also part of a much bigger argument taking shape around Carney’s economic agenda: Who gets a say in how Canada should change, and how quickly, in the name of making itself less vulnerable to the US?

Critics accuse Carney of using the economic threat from the US to push through changes that go well beyond responding to Trump’s trade war.

New Democratic Party leader Avi Lewis has accused him of using the “fear and disorientation around the trade war to push through a series of unpopular measures that he did not run on, has no mandate for and would never get away with under normal circumstances”.

That tension was on display in Toronto just a week before C-39 was introduced. Inside Canada’s first national investment summit, hundreds of global investors met with government officials and executives as Carney pitched a country ready to build.

Outside, hundreds of protesters marched through downtown towards the summit’s opening gala under the banner “The Many vs The Money”. The rally brought together labour, Indigenous, environmental and migrant-rights groups, with signs and speeches taking aim at everything from fossil fuel and military projects to AI and the use of public money to attract private investment.

For unions, C-39 has sharpened that debate, pitting the government’s promise of greater certainty for investors against workers’ ability to exert pressure through strikes.

But Jim Stanford, an economist and director of the Vancouver-based Centre for Future Work, questions how much of an economic threat strikes actually pose.

While work stoppages can be costly for individual companies, Stanford said, “It is very, very rare that you would see a noticeable and sustained impact on GDP, employment or incomes.”

Production and transportation are often delayed rather than permanently lost, he added, with businesses catching up once work resumes.

Stanford also questioned the idea that strikes are driving away investment, noting that more than 95 percent of collective bargaining ends without a work stoppage and saying there is “no empirical evidence whatsoever” that strikes have reduced investment.

“This is more of the government giving some icing on the cake for business. It’s not that this has to happen or else our investment won’t work,” he said.

There is also an economic cost to weakening the right to strike, Stanford argued. Workers need bargaining power to win higher wages, which can support consumer spending, productivity and worker retention.

“It may seem like labour peace is a good thing, but if it means that a worker’s share of the pie shrinks, then this actually hurts the economy.”

For labour leaders, that’s where Carney’s economic push goes too far.

“Canada’s unions are part of Team Canada. We have our elbows up,” Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske said in a statement. “But we can’t have our elbows up against Trump with our hands tied at the bargaining table.”

Savage said the government’s “Team Canada” rhetoric risks treating workers’ bargaining power as a national liability.

“I don’t think Canada becomes stronger by telling workers in ports or railways or airlines that their rights have to be surrendered whenever employers invoke competitiveness or the national interest,” he said.

Carney declared the pipeline a project of national interest, smoothening its way to a single federal regulatory review process.

Canada will fast track the approval process for a new proposed crude oil export pipeline to its west coast that could generate billions in revenue and boost economic growth, Prime Minister Mark Carney has said.

Carney made the announcement on Thursday to fast-track the pipeline, which is a crucial part of his bid to diversify the economy away from the United States and help lessen the effect of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

Carney said Ottawa is officially listing the Pacific Link pipeline, which had been announced in July, as a project of national interest. That will ensure it proceeds through a single federal regulatory review process. He said Ottawa aimed to complete the process by September 1, 2027.

“A pipeline to the west coast is part of our mission to transform our economy, to double our non-US exports over the next decade … [and] to unlock our full potential as a global energy superpower,” he told reporters in Fort McMurray, hub of Alberta’s tar sands industry.

Ottawa says the 1 million barrel a day project would create 140,000 jobs and generate more than 20 billion Canadian dollars ($14bn) in gross domestic product (GDP) per year and 100 billion Canadian dollars ($70bn) in government revenue by 2060.

Canada currently has just one east-west oil export pipeline in Canada, the 890,000-barrel-per-day Trans Mountain pipeline. An expansion of that pipeline was completed in 2024, but it is already running at capacity.

For years, Canada has sent more than 90 percent of its crude oil exports to the US via pipeline. A new oil export pipeline could make Canada a major global energy supplier, as Asia’s top importers seek oil from outside the Middle East in the wake of the Iran conflict.

Filling the pipeline, however, would require new tar sands expansions of the type no company has undertaken in more than a decade.

The pipeline will be built by government-owned Trans Mountain Corp in coordination with Pembina Pipeline Corp. Alberta estimates it could cost between 35.2 billion Canadian dollars and 43.7 billion Canadian dollars ($24.7bn – $30.7bn).

The majority owners will be the federal government and the government of Alberta. Indigenous communities will be offered a minimum of 10 percent ownership interest.

Previous oil pipeline projects in Canada have faced strong opposition from environmentalists and Indigenous groups, resulting in the cancellation of some projects and leading to cost overruns and construction delays with others.

Alberta separatism

Carney made the announcement alongside Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in Fort McMurray in the heart of Canada’s tar sands, a move meant to mend relations with oil-rich Alberta as separatists push for a referendum on leaving Canada.

Alberta is holding a public vote on October 19 on whether to hold a referendum on leaving Canada. Smith has long complained that Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, hindered Alberta’s energy industry and fuelled separatist sentiment.

Smith said she would vote to keep Alberta in Canada and called the roughly 22 percent support for separation in a recent poll “still too high for my liking”.

“I don’t like the fact that many of our fellow citizens have given up on Canada,” Smith said, adding that the pipeline was an example of how “cooperative federalism can work in action”.

Asked what message Albertans considering separation should take from the announcement, Carney said it demonstrated that “Canada is working” and showed what the country could achieve by acting together.

Trump retaliated against Canada’s counter-tariffs on $20bn worth of US imports by banning $1bn of Canadian goods.

The United States is implementing a ban on nearly $1bn in imports from Canada, including alcoholic beverages, dairy products and motorcycles.

The ban took effect early Tuesday and is likely to further strain already-tense relations between the two neighbours.

Ottawa and Washington DC have long been allies and trade partners, with approximately $880bn worth of annual two-way trade. That relationship has been upended during US President Donald Trump’s second term as he unleashed tariffs on most trading partners, including Canada, and referred to the northern neighbour as the 51st state of the US.

Most recently, the US slapped 50 percent levies on Canadian goods worth $20bn, including dairy and motorcycles, on August 22 after trade negotiations failed. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney retaliated, saying Ottawa will match US tariffs “dollar for dollar in order to protect Canadian workers, farmers, families and businesses”. Canada levied tariffs of 15 percent, 25 percent and 50 percent on US exports of a similar value.

Tuesday’s ban was Trump’s punishment for Canada’s retaliatory tariffs.

“The impact of such a ban will be minor, it is only $1bn while we trade hundreds of billions with Canada,” Professor Gary Shields at Wayne State University’s School of Business told Al Jazeera. “It is, however, rather astonishing how President Trump treats our allies in Canada and Europe, while rolling out the red carpet for China’s dictator when he visited the US last week”.

“It is a tit-for-tat. It will not reduce people’s taxes and won’t put money in their pockets. It is kind of personal and a way of showing off toughness,” Shields added.

Canada’s economy grew by an estimated 0.2 percent in August after remaining unchanged in July, according to Statistics Canada. But the new US-Canada tariffs, tighter financial conditions and a shrinking population should further weaken growth in late 2026 and early 2027, Michael Davenport, senior Canada economist at Oxford Economics, said in a note provided to Al Jazeera.